Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 shows a clear and predictable scaling pattern as resolution increases, but the magnitude of the drop reveals where the bottleneck sits. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo delivers 119 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 96 FPS, a 19% reduction. At 4K Low, the average falls to 71 FPS, which is 40% below the 1080p Low result. This scaling curve is steep, indicating that the RTX 4060’s 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 128-bit bus are being stressed heavily as pixel count rises.

The story is similar across all settings presets. At High settings, the progression is 70 FPS at 1080p, 56 FPS at 1440p, and 42 FPS at 4K. That is a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and another 25% drop from 1440p to 4K. Ultra settings follow the same trajectory: 66 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 40 FPS at 4K. The fact that the 4K Ultra result (40 FPS) is nearly identical to the 4K High result (42 FPS) suggests the GPU is hitting a hard performance ceiling at that resolution, regardless of the visual fidelity requested.

The Medium preset, which is the only one with min and max FPS data recorded, provides additional insight. At 1080p Medium, the range is 79 to 107 FPS with an average of 93. At 1440p Medium, the range narrows to 64 to 86 FPS with an average of 75. At 4K Medium, the range compresses further to 47 to 64 FPS with an average of 55. The shrinking gap between min and max FPS as resolution increases points to the GPU becoming the consistent limiting factor, rather than occasional CPU-driven spikes.

Benchmark results indicate that the RTX 4060, with its 272.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 performance, is the primary constraint at 4K. The 5500X3D’s 96 MB shared L3 cache and 6-core/12-thread configuration are sufficient to feed the GPU at lower resolutions, but the data shows that at 4K, the GPU simply cannot maintain high frame rates even when settings are dropped from Ultra to High. The difference between 4K Ultra (40 FPS) and 4K Low (71 FPS) is 31 FPS, which is substantial, but the 4K Low result still falls short of the 1080p Ultra result of 66 FPS, highlighting how resolution dominates the performance equation.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 5000 series, built on the Zen 3 architecture with the Vermeer codename. It operates on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Its defining feature is the 96 MB shared L3 cache, which is critical for gaming workloads like Microsoft Flight Simulator that benefit from large, fast-access data pools. The CPU’s PassMark single-thread score of 2941 and multithread score of 20363 place it in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, indicating strong overall compute capability.

In the context of this game, the CPU’s role is best understood by examining the FPS deltas between settings at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, the spread from Low (119 FPS) to Ultra (66 FPS) is 53 FPS, which is a massive range. This wide spread suggests that at 1080p, the CPU has enough headroom to let the GPU work harder when settings increase, but the GPU still becomes the bottleneck at Ultra. At 4K, the spread from Low (71 FPS) to Ultra (40 FPS) is only 31 FPS, a much narrower range. This compression indicates that at 4K, the GPU is so heavily loaded that even reducing settings to Low cannot fully relieve the pressure, and the CPU’s contribution to frame rate variation diminishes.

The 5500X3D’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks provide context for its compute positioning. It scores 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F (avgScore 36945), 0.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 (avgScore 36938), 0.2% lower than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (avgScore 37093), and 0.3% lower than the Intel Core i9-12900T (avgScore 37112). These are marginal differences, all within 0.5% of each other, meaning the 5500X3D is positioned squarely in the middle of a tight performance cluster. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, this means the CPU is unlikely to be the differentiator between playable and unplayable; the GPU will dictate the experience.

The CPU’s memory support is DDR4 with dual-channel configuration and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is adequate for feeding the RTX 4060 but not exceptional. The 5500X3D is not multiplier unlocked, so overclocking headroom is limited, but its stock performance is already strong. The PassMark physics score of 2282 and floating point math score of 34511 indicate solid computational throughput, which helps with the complex flight dynamics and weather calculations that Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for. However, the measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU clearly limits performance; even at 1080p Low (119 FPS), the frame rate is high enough to suggest the GPU is still the primary constraint, just at a lower level of load.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 119, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only result above 100 FPS in the entire dataset.

Q: How does the RTX 4060 compare to its nearest GPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The RTX 4060 has an average benchmark score of 17639. It is 0.2% lower than the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (avgScore 17666), 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon 780M (avgScore 17588), 0.5% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (avgScore 17551), and 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (avgScore 17509). These deltas are all under 1%, indicating very close synthetic performance among these GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 4K resolution?

A: Benchmark results indicate the GPU is the primary limiter at 4K. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 40, and at 4K High it is 42, a negligible difference of 2 FPS. This suggests the RTX 4060 is saturated, and even reducing settings from Ultra to High does not meaningfully improve frame rates.

Q: What is the combo’s rank among all tested combinations for this game?

A: The combo ranks 1564 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle portion of the overall distribution, meaning many other CPU-GPU pairings deliver higher frame rates.

Q: Does the Medium preset provide a playable experience at 1440p?

A: Yes, the data shows 75 FPS average at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, with a range of 64 to 86 FPS. This is comfortably above typical playability thresholds and offers a smooth experience.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average FPS drops from 70 at 1920x1080 to 42 at 3840x2160, a reduction of 28 FPS or 40%. This is a significant loss, highlighting the GPU’s struggle at 4K.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of performance across three resolutions and four settings presets. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low settings yield an average of 119 FPS, Medium yields 93 FPS with a range of 79 to 107, High yields 70 FPS, and Ultra yields 66 FPS. The 1080p results show a clear hierarchy, with Low being 28% faster than Medium, and Ultra being only 6% slower than High.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 96 FPS for Low, 75 FPS for Medium (range 64 to 86), 56 FPS for High, and 54 FPS for Ultra. The drop from 1080p to 1440p is consistent across settings, ranging from 19% for Low to 23% for High. Notably, the gap between High and Ultra narrows at 1440p, with only 2 FPS separating them, whereas at 1080p the gap is 4 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 71 FPS for Low, 55 FPS for Medium (range 47 to 64), 42 FPS for High, and 40 FPS for Ultra. The 4K results are the most compressed, with only 31 FPS separating Low from Ultra. The Medium preset’s min FPS of 47 at 4K is the lowest recorded value in the entire dataset, indicating occasional frame dips that could affect gameplay smoothness.

Comparing the Medium preset across resolutions, which has the most complete data: 1080p Medium averages 93 FPS, 1440p Medium averages 75 FPS, and 4K Medium averages 55 FPS. The relative performance from 1080p to 1440p is a 19% drop, and from 1440p to 4K is a 27% drop. This shows that the scaling penalty increases as resolution rises, reinforcing the GPU bottleneck at 4K. The min FPS values follow a similar pattern: 79 at 1080p, 64 at 1440p, and 47 at 4K, a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 combination ranks 1564 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it at approximately the 52nd percentile, meaning it outperforms slightly more than half of all tested configurations but lags behind the top 48%. This rank is modest for a modern setup, reflecting the RTX 4060’s mid-range positioning and the game’s demanding nature.

The CPU’s percentile of 85 among all CPUs indicates it is a strong processor, but this strength does not translate into a top-tier gaming rank for this specific game. The GPU’s percentile of 61 among all GPUs is notably lower, and since Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily GPU-dependent at higher resolutions, the GPU’s more modest standing drags the overall combo rank down. The synthetic benchmark deltas between the 5500X3D and its nearest CPU rivals are all under 0.5%, so swapping to a similar-tier CPU would have virtually no impact on this combo’s ranking.

The RTX 4060’s nearest GPU rivals are all older or integrated solutions, with the AMD Radeon HD 7790 and Radeon 780M being the closest in synthetic scores. However, the RTX 4060’s modern Ada Lovelace architecture and 8 GB GDDR6 memory give it real-world advantages in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that the synthetic scores may not fully capture. Still, the combo rank of 1564 indicates that many other pairings, likely featuring higher-tier GPUs, achieve better frame rates in this title. The data shows that the 5500X3D is not the weak link; the RTX 4060’s performance ceiling is what limits this combo to its mid-pack position.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings preset depends on the target resolution and desired frame rate. For 1920x1080, the Medium preset at 93 FPS offers the best balance of visual quality and performance, with a min FPS of 79 ensuring smooth play. High settings at 70 FPS are also viable, but Ultra at 66 FPS provides only a marginal improvement over High while costing 4 FPS, making it the least efficient choice at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the Medium preset at 75 FPS is the clear recommendation for a smooth experience, with its 64 FPS min still above typical stutter thresholds. Low settings at 96 FPS are available but sacrifice significant visual fidelity. High at 56 FPS and Ultra at 54 FPS are both playable but approach the lower bound of smoothness, and the negligible difference between them suggests High is the better option if visual quality is prioritized over the minimal FPS gain from dropping to High.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. The Low preset at 71 FPS is the only 4K setting that exceeds 60 FPS, making it the only truly smooth option. Medium at 55 FPS is acceptable for less demanding play, but its min FPS of 47 indicates occasional dips. High at 42 FPS and Ultra at 40 FPS are both borderline, and the data shows no meaningful benefit to using Ultra over High at 4K, as the 2 FPS difference is within the margin of error.

Overall, the Medium preset is the most versatile choice across all resolutions, delivering 93 FPS at 1080p, 75 FPS at 1440p, and 55 FPS at 4K. For users prioritizing frame rate over visuals, Low at 1080p (119 FPS) or 1440p (96 FPS) is the best option. For those wanting maximum visual fidelity, Ultra is only recommended at 1080p (66 FPS), as at 1440p and 4K the FPS drops to 54 and 40, respectively, which are too low for smooth gameplay. The data clearly shows that Medium is the sweet spot for this CPU-GPU combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator, offering playable frame rates at every resolution while maintaining reasonable visual quality.